ArticleBMC primary care2022
Accuracy of the COPD diagnostic questionnaire as a screening tool in primary care.
Article in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estimating the global prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- External validation of an IOS-derived model for airflow obstruction and COPD in a community-based cohort.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Performance study of a new diagnostic questionnaire for (Chronic obstructive pulmonary -disease) COPD with information on exposure to wood smoke, COPD-WS.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Screening of COPD patients using the COPD diagnostic questionnaire and a portable spirometer in primary healthcare institutions: a cross-sectional, diagnostic study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Improved accuracy and efficiency of primary care fall risk screening of older adults using a machine learning approach.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COPD Diagnostic Questionnaire (CDQ) was developed to identify people who would benefit from spirometry testing to confirm Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The aim of this study was to determine the usefulness of a cut-off score of 16.5 on the CDQ in identifying those at increased risk of obstruction, in a mixed population of people 'at risk' of COPD and those with an 'existing' COPD diagnosis.
methodsPeople 'at risk' of COPD (aged > 40 years, current/ex-smoker) and those with 'existing' COPD were identified from four general practices and invited to participate. Participants completed the CDQ and those with a CDQ score ≥ 16.5 were categorised as having intermediate to increased likelihood of airflow obstruction. Pre and post-bronchodilator spirometry determined the presence of airway obstruction (FEV
resultsOne hundred forty-one participants attended an initial assessment ('at risk' = 111 (79%), 'existing' COPD = 30 (21%)). A cut-off score of 16.5 corresponded to a sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 36% and accuracy of 50%, in the entire mixed population. The area under the ROC curve was 0.59 ± 0.50 indicating low diagnostic accuracy of the CDQ. Similar results were found in the 'existing' COPD group alone.
conclusionWhilst a cut-off score of 16.5 on the CDQ may result in a large number of false positives, clinicians may still wish to use the CDQ to refine who receives spirometry due to its high sensitivity.
trial registrationANZCTR, ACTRN12619001127190. Registered 12 August 2019 - Retrospectively registered, http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/ACTRN12619001127190.aspx.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.